US Qwerty and Dvorak Keyboard Layouts LP Qwerty Keyboard Layout The QWERTY letter arrangement appeared on the first typewriters in the 1870's, and hasn't changed since. Unfortunately it is far from optimal, with more typing done on the top row than home row, and awkward hops between top and bottom rows required for many common English words. The FingerWorks QWERTY layout has optimized key column angles for touch typing on ZeroForce surfaces. Why? Because without key edges, straight flexion & extension are simpler, quicker motions for your fingers. The QWERTY layout also includes an embedded punctuation pad on the right half. The punctuation pad lets programmers type frequently-needed punctuation symbols without inaccurate pinky reaches. The embedded punctuation symbols are active while the AltGr modifier chord is held by the left hand, just like top row punctuation symbols are active when the Shift modifier chord is held. LP Dvorak Keyboard Layout The DVORAK key layout was carefully designed by August Dvorak in the 1930's and became an ANSI standard in 1982.

All vowels are placed on the left hand home row keys, and the most common consonants ('D','H','T','N','S') lie on the right hand's home row. This way most (70%) typing is done within home row, and finger hops between upper and lower rows of keys are minimized. This is a stark contrast to QWERTY, which requires finger hops for common letter sequences like 'EC','EX','CR','CT','CE','BR','BE', and 'UN'. (Compare finger travel to type 'EXCRUCIATING' on QWERTY versus on the DVORAK layout above). Typing gurus and academics have long debated how much faster DVORAK is than QWERTY. While DVORAK appears to increase mechanical keyboard speeds only 5-10%, one thing is clear: it greatly (90%) reduces finger motion and travel off home row! This can be very helpful for people whose hand or wrist injuries make repeated finger stretches painful. By eliminating sources of hand drift, DVORAK offers performance advantages that are even more important for zero-force surface typing than for mechanical keyboards. What's the catch?

If you've already learned touch typing on QWERTY, retraining your brain to type quickly on DVORAK keyboards could take 3 to 6 slow, frustrating weeks. All alphabetic and punctuation keys except 'A' and 'M' move to new positions! The least frequently used keys (e.g. Z X [ ]) and keys that move to the opposite hand seem to take longest to relearn. FingerWorks Resellers that stock or specialize in Dvorak keyboards: The Dvorak Keyboard by Dylan McNamee Qwerak Experimental Layout Qwerak is an experimental, hybrid layout that FingerWorks is optimizing specifically for surface typing. Because Qwerak is still experimental, you cannot order a TouchStream with Qwerak printed covers. However, if you think learning Dvorak is tame and like the idea of rewiring your brain with something even more eccentric, order a Dvorak and give Qwerak a try by enabling it electronically . Feel free to make your own tweaks to the key placements in the MyGesture Editor 's layout editor.

As you can see from the image above ( click for full-size printable ), the right half especially is very similar to Dvorak, with a few Qwerty influences on peripheral keys. Here is how Qwerak's surface-typing optimizations differ slightly from Dvorak's objectives for mechanical keyboards: Minimize frequency of corner reaches by index and pinky fingers, e.g. move L from pinky to middle finger and Y from index to ring finger. Slightly decrease frequency of hand alternation (e.g. swap S and O) where within-hand rolls across adjacent surface keys can be less tricky than inter-hand alternation timing. Least-frequently-used keys like Z Q / " take longest to relearn because you practice them less often. Qwerak leaves these in same place as Qwerty to cut retraining time a bit. The Lies You've Been Told About the Origin of the QWERTY Keyboard - The Atlantic The Atlantic The Lies You've Been Told About the Origin of the QWERTY Keyboard The QWERTY configuration for typewriters can be traced, actually, to the telegraph. Most Popular Print Text Size The first time I heard the lie, I was in fifth grade. Mr.

Ward took me aside (or maybe he told the whole class, it was a long time ago) to tell me about the wonders of Dvorak, a different keyboard layout that was scientifically designed to be more efficient than the standard layout. That layout was called QWERTY, he explained, and it had been created to slow typists down. You see, in the olden days, mechanical typewriters could jam if people hit the keys too quickly, so they had to put the common letters far apart from each other. The modern keyboard, I was told, was a holdover of the mechanical age. Since then, I've heard this story repeated a thousand times. So many times, I had assumed it was true. But Jimmy Stamp over at Smithsonian points to evidence released by Japanese researchers that, in fact, the story is bunk. The QWERTY keyboard did not spring fully formed from Christopher Sholes, the first person to file a typewriter patent with the layout. Rather, it formed over time as telegraph operators used the machines to transcribe Morse code. The layout changed often from the early alphabetical arrangement, before the final configuration came into being.

The researchers tracked the evolution of the typewriter keyboard alongside a record of its early professional users. They conclude that the mechanics of the typewriter did not influence the keyboard design. Rather, the QWERTY system emerged as a result of how the first typewriters were being used. Early adopters and beta-testers included telegraph operators who needed to quickly transcribe messages. However, the operators found the alphabetical arrangement to be confusing and inefficient for translating morse code. The Kyoto paper suggests that the typewriter keyboard evolved over several years as a direct result of input provided by these telegraph operators. That is to say, the lesson of the QWERTY story remains the resilience of a design created for an outmoded technology's dictates. QWERTY is still an example of technological momentum. But the development of the design wasn't accidental or silly: it was complex, evolutionary, and quite sensible for Morse operators. Keyboard configurations are newly important as we think about how we should type on tablets and other devices. The calling card of the personal computer was the keyboard, and now, we are carrying around pieces of glass on which we simulate the old QWERTY design. Are we going to keep that layout going?

Perhaps QWERTY will always be good enough. But if not, how might a new design develop? Fact of Fiction? The Legend of the QWERTY Keyboard | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian Fact of Fiction? The Legend of the QWERTY Keyboard What came first: the typist or the keyboard? The answer may surprise you May 3, 2013 U.S. Patent No. 207,559. The first appearance of the QWERTY keyboard. (image: Google patents) What came first: the typist or the keyboard? The answer depends on the keyboard. A recent article in Smithsonian’s news blog, Smart News, described an innovative new keyboard system that proposes a more efficient alternative to the ubiquitous “universal” keyboard best known as QWERTY – named for the first six letters in the top row of keys. The new keyboard, known as KALQ, is designed specifically for thumb-typing on today’s smart phones and tablets. It’s an interesting and by all accounts commercially viable design that got me thinking about the rationale behind the QWERTY keyboard.

Unlike KALQ, it couldn’t have been designed to accommodate a specific typing technique because, well, the idea of typing –touch typing, at least– hadn’t been invented yet. It turns out that there is a lot of myth and misinformation surrounding the development of QWERTY, but these various theories all seem to agree that the QWERTY layout was developed along with, and inextricably linked to, early typewriters. In the 1860s, a politician, printer, newspaper man, and amateur inventor in Milwaukee by the name of Christopher Latham Sholes spent his free time developing various machines to make his businesses more efficient. One such invention was an early typewriter, which he developed with Samuel W. Soulé, James Densmore, and Carlos Glidden, and first patented in 1868 . The earliest typewriter keyboard resembled a piano and was built with an alphabetical arrangement of 28 keys. The team surely assumed it would be the most efficient arrangement. After all, anyone who used the keyboard would know immediately where to find each letter; hunting would be reduced, pecking would be increased. Why change things?

This is where the origin of QWERTY gets a little foggy. Experimental Sholes & Glidden typewriters circa 1873. (original image: The World of Typewriters) The popular theory states that Sholes had to redesign the keyboard in response to the mechanical failings of early typewriters, which were slightly different from the models most often seen in thrift stores and flea markets. The type bars connecting the key and the letter plate hung in a cycle beneath the paper. If a user quickly typed a succession of letters whose type bars were near each other, the delicate machinery would get jammed. So, it is said, Sholes redesigned the arrangement to separate the most common sequences of letters like “th” or “he”. In theory then, the QWERTY system should maximize the separation of common letter pairings. This theory could be easily debunked for the simple reason that “er” is the fourth most common letter pairing in the English language. However, one of the typewriter prototypes had a slightly different keyboard that was only changed at the last minute.

If it had been put into production this article would have been about the QWE.TY keyboard: The 1873 prototype used to demonstrate the technology to Remington (original image: The World of Typewriters) By 1873, the typewriter had 43 keys and a decidedly counter-intuitive arrangement of letters that supposedly helped ensure the expensive machines wouldn’t break down. Form follows function and the keyboard trains the typist. That same year, Sholes and his cohorts entered into a manufacturing agreement with gun-maker Remington, a well-equipped company familiar with producing precision machinery and, in the wake of the Cilvil War, no doubt looking to turn their swords into plowshares. However, right before their machine, dubbed the Sholes & Glidden, went into production, Sholes filed another patent, which included a new keyboard arrangement. Issued in 1878, U.S. Patent No. 207,559 (top image) marked the first documented appearance of the QWERTY layout. The deal with Remington proved to be an enormous success.

By 1890, there were more than 100,000 QWERTY-based Remington produced typewriters in use across the country. The fate of the keyboard was decided in 1893 when the five largest typewriter manufacturers –Remington, Caligraph, Yost, Densmore, and Smith-Premier– merged to form the Union Typewriter Company and agreed to adopt QWERTY as the de facto standard that we know and love today. There’s a somewhat related theory that credits Remington’s pre-merger business tactics with the popularization of QWERTY. Remington didn’t just produce typewriters, they also provided training courses – for a small fee, of course. Typists who learned on their proprietary system would have to stay loyal to the brand, so companies that wanted to hire trained typists had to stock their desks with Remington typewriters. It’s a system that’s still works today, as illustrated by the devout following Apple built through the ecosystem created by iTunes, the iTunes store, and the iPod.

While it can’t be argued that deal with Remington helped popularize the QWERTY system, its development as a response to mechanical error, has been questioned by Kyoto University Researchers Koichi Yasuoka and Motoko Yasuoka . In a 2011 paper, the researchers tracked the evolution of the typewriter keyboard alongside a record of its early professional users. They conclude that the mechanics of the typewriter did not influence the keyboard design. Rather, the QWERTY system emerged as a result of how the first typewriters were being used. Early adopters and beta-testers included telegraph operators who needed to quickly transcribe messages. However, the operators found the alphabetical arrangement to be confusing and inefficient for translating morse code. The Kyoto paper suggests that the typewriter keyboard evolved over several years as a direct result of input provided by these telegraph operators. For example; “The code represents Z as ‘· · · ·’ which is often confused with the digram SE, more frequently-used than Z. Sometimes Morse receivers in United States cannot determine whether Z or SE is applicable, especially in the ﬁrst letter(s) of a word, before they receive following letters.

Thus S ought to be placed near by both Z and E on the keyboard for Morse receivers to type them quickly (by the same reason C ought to be placed near by IE. But, in fact, C was more often confused with S). In this scenario, the typist came before the keyboard. The Kyoto paper also cites the Morse lineage to further debunk the theory that Sholes wanted to protect his machine from jamming by rearranged the keys with the specific intent to slow down typists: “The speed of Morse receiver should be equal to the Morse sender, of course. If Sholes really arranged the keyboard to slow down the operator, the operator became unable to catch up the Morse sender. We don’t believe that Sholes had such a nonsense intention during his development of Type-Writer.” Regardless of how he developed it, Sholes himself wasn’t convinced that QWERTY was the best system.

Although he sold his designs to Remington early on, he continued to invent improvements and alternatives to the typewriter for the rest of his life, including several keyboard layouts that he determined to be more efficient, such as the following patent, filed by Sholes in 1889, a year before he died, and issued posthumously: U.S. Patent No. 568,630, issued to C.L. Sholes after his death (image: google patents) But the biggest rivals to ever challenge QWERTY is the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard , developed by Dr. August Dvorak in the 1930s. The Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (image: wikipedia) Dvorak users reported faster and more accurate typing, in part because the system dramatically increases the number of words that can be typed using the “home” row of keys where your fingers naturally rest – also known as the keys you type when you’re just trying fill space. asjdfkal; sdfjkl; asdfjkl; asdfjkl; dkadsf. asdfjklasdfjk. More recent research has debunked any claims that Dvorak is more efficient, but it hardly matters.

Even in 1930 it was already too late for a new system to gain a foothold. While Dvorak certainly has its champions, it never gained enough of a following to overthrow King QWERTY. After all, the world learned to type using Remington’s keyboard. When the first generation of computer keyboards emerged, there was no longer any technical reason to use the system – computers didn’t get jammed. But of course, there’s the minor fact that millions of people learned to type on the QWERTY keyboards. It had become truly ubiquitous in countries that used the Latin alphabet. Not only that, but way back in 1910, the system had been adopted by Teletype , a company that would go on to produce electronic typewriters and computer terminals widely used around the world, thereby ensuring QWERTY’s place as the new technological standard. The KALQ keyboard layout (image: Outlasvirta et al.) When a design depends on a previous innovation too entrenched in the cultural zeitgeist to change, it’s known as a path dependency . And this why the new KALQ proposal is so interesting.

It attempts to break from the tyranny of Christopher Latham Sholes, whose QWERTY system makes even less sense on the virtual keyboards of tablets and smartphones than it does on a computer keyboards. Is the new KALQ system any different? In some ways, the answer is obviously yes. It has been designed around a very specific, very modern behavior – typing with thumbs. Like the telegraph operator QWERTY theory, the user is determining the structure of the keyboard. But it could still be argued that the KALQ system, or any similar system that may be developed in the future, is also a product of path dependency. Because no matter how the letters are arranged, they basic notion of individually separated letters distributed across a grid dates back to Sholes and co. tinkering away in their Milwaukee workshops. But it’s just not necessary in a tablet. If you gave an iPad to someone who had never used a keyboard and told them to develop a writing system, chances are they would eventually invent a faster, more intuitive system. Perhaps a gesture based system based on shorthand? Or some sort of swipe-to-type system?

This is not to say that such a system would be better, it’s merely an observation that our most bleeding edge communication technology still dates back more than 150 years to some guys tinkering in their garage. Truly, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Like this article? The Dvorak Keyboard The Dvorak Keyboard ! @ # $ % ^ & * ( ) [ + 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 ] = " < > P Y F G C R L ? ' , . p y f g c r l / A O E U I D H T N S _ a o e u i d h t n s - : Q J K X B M W V Z ; q j k x b m w v z The Dvorak keyboard, named for its inventor, Dr. August Dvorak, was designed with the goal of maximizing typing efficiency. For over a century, typists have been using the qwerty keyboard arrangement, a hack that was implemented to work around the mechanical limitations of early typewriters. Contrary to popular opinion, the qwerty design was not actually invented to slow typists down.

Rather, the layout was intended to place common two-letter combinations on opposite sides of the keyboard. On manual typewriters, each key is mechanically connected to a lever that has the reversed image of a letter on it. If a typist were to hit two keys on the same side of the keyboard in rapid succession, the second lever on its way up would hit the first on its way down, the keys would become stuck together, and the typist would have to stop typing and unstick the keys. The qwerty layout was a clever design that minimized this problem. However, now that most of us use computers (or electric typewriters that don't use levers), the problem of keys jamming is no longer a consideration. Also, computers now enable us to switch layouts while continuing to use the same equipment. Most people learn to type on a qwerty keyboard. New typists learn the qwerty arrangement because that's most likely what they'll encounter on the existing equipment they'll be using; new equipment is standardized to the qwerty arrangement because that's what the vast majority of us know.

Most people are reluctant to switch because they're afraid of how long it will take them to learn the new arrangement, and of the additional effort of having to switch layouts on all of the equipment they might encounter. Dvorak's Claims According to Dvorak, prior to World War II, researchers had found that after three years of typing instruction, the average typing student's speed was 47 net words per minute (NWPM). Since typists were scarce during the war, the U.S. Navy selected fourteen typists for a 1944 study to assess whether Dvorak retraining would be feasible. Dvorak found that it took an average of only 52 hours of training for those typists' speeds on the Dvorak keyboard to reach their average speeds on the qwerty keyboard. By the end of the study their Dvorak speeds were 74 percent faster than their qwerty speeds, and their accuracies had increased by 68 percent.

Dvorak attributed the increase in accuracy to the fact that on keyboard, that the most common digraphs (two-letter combinations, such as "ed") in English would occur with a minimum of "hurdling" (having to jump over a key as if it were a hurdle), and would use stronger fingers rather than weaker ones. Dvorak estimated that the fingers of an average typist in his day travelled between 12 and 20 miles on a qwerty keyboard; the same text on a Dvorak keyboard would require only about one mile of travel. Dvorak believed that hurdling and awkward keystroke combinations were responsible for most of the common errors typists make. His list of the most common typing errors on the Dvorak and qwerty keyboards is interesting. Unfortunately, subsequent investigation has shown that at best, the experiments in the Navy study were biased, and at worst, fabricated. See Typing Errors , from the June 1996 issue of Reason Magazine for a thorough discussion of this topic, as well as more information about the early history of the typewriter and the qwerty keyboard . In the mid 1950s, U.S.

Government's General Services Administration commissioned a study by Earle Strong to confirm Dvorak's results. Strong's study, which included proper controls and which was set up to allow direct comparison of qwerty and Dvorak data, found that after sufficient training, Dvorak typists were able to match their previous qwerty speeds, but not surpass them. Furthermore, additional qwerty training for qwerty typists resulted in a greater increase in speed than additional Dvorak training for Dvorak typists who typed at a similar rate. These results would suggest that Dvorak's claims of faster and more efficient typing are bogus, and switching layouts on the basis of speed and efficiency would not make sense. My Own Experience Having heard Dvorak's claims, but not the modern-day scientific analysis of his experiments, I decided to switch to the Dvorak layout in the late 1980s, when computer software (specifically version 10 of the X Window System) made it fairly simple to remap the keyboard layout without making any hardware changes. It took a few months for my Dvorak speed to catch up to my qwerty speed. I found the Dvorak layout to be more comfortable and less effort.

For a period of four or five years, I used the qwerty layout at work (on a shared DOS computer), and the Dvorak layout at home, spending about half of my typing time on each. During that time, my Dvorak speed increased to 90 wpm, and my qwerty speed reached 80 wpm. My accuracy improved slightly on both layouts. On the Dvorak layout, my most common typos are reversing two letters, whereas on the qwerty layout, it's more common for me to hit the wrong key altogether. (Note also that several people have made the claim that it's impossible to be able to switch back and forth between different keyboard layouts. That certainly hasn't been my experience, and I'm always happy to demonstrate for non-believers.) The greatest benefit I've found from the Dvorak layout is that, in addition to feeling more comfortable, the typing-related discomfort I was beginning to experience in my wrists and forearms diminished, even though the amount of typing I was doing remained constant. Once my workplace switched from DOS to Windows and I was able to use the Dvorak layout everwhere, those problems vanished and have not returned.

I believe that Dvorak's claims that his layout requires less "hurdling" over keys and less total finger travel are true, and that this is more or less directly responsible for the reduction in RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury) symptoms that I have experienced. Recommendations Was making the switch worth it? Yes, because of the ergonomic benefits. Would I recommend it to other people? Yes, particularly if you have RSI problems from typing. When you first make the switch, the unfamiliar layout will slow you down, helping your injured arms and wrists heal. Once your Dvorak speed catches up with your qwerty speed (which it eventually will), you will likely find typing more comfortable (or at least less uncomfortable), and it may be less likely that your RSI will recur. How to Remap Your Keyboard Windows 95, 98, NT 4.0, 2000, and ME From the "Start" menu, select "Settings" and then "Control Panel". From the Control Panel, double-click on "Keyboard". From the Keyboard folder, select the "Language" tab and click on the "Properties" button.

Select "United States-Dvorak" and then click on the "OK" button. Windows may ask you for the installation CD to copy the dvorak driver. Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.51 Select the "International" icon from your control panel. Then select "keyboard", and "US-Dvorak". This may require you to install the Dvorak keyboard DLL from your Windows install disks. Macintosh On computers running Mac OS 9.x and later, select the "Apple Menu", then "Control Panels", then "Keyboard", and then select "Dvorak". There is a second "Dvorak" layout which reverts to qwerty when the command key is held down. Macintosh, NeXTSTEP, DOS, and handhelds running Palm OS Note: I have downloaded the following binary files from the net, but haven't tested them. I have no idea how well they work. Caveat emptor.

Macintosh: I'm told the following works for Macintoshes running Mac OS 7.x: dvorak-macintosh.hqx DOS: dvorak-dos.zip Nextstep: dvorak-nextstep (uuencoded binary file) Palm: If you use the Palm Portable Keyboard, download and install ppk-dvk.zip , produced by Don Singer . (I got it from Lennart Floreby's Palm Pilot Page .) Note that Singer believes that the locations of the period and comma keys should be reversed, and that Microsoft is responsible for the change. I do not know whether or when these keys may have been switched, but if the change did occur, it certainly predates Microsoft. X Window System X Window System users (UNIX) can make the translation by running xmodmap on an appropriate keysym file. Here are some platform-independent ones. To use them, simply save the appropriate file and give it as an argument to xmodmap. keysym file for Dr. Dvorak's right-handed keyboard , designed for people who have lost the use of their left hands. You're also welcome to copy and use my keymap bourne shell script , which does the dirty work for you.

For those who would prefer to purchase a hard-wired keyboard, keyalt.com sells a keyboard that can alternate between the Dvorak and qwerty layouts via a switch . Teaching Yourself Dvorak via the WWW Dan Wood has created a WWW course for teaching yourself Dvorak . Just switch your keyboard to Dvorak, go to the web site, and you're ready to start typing. References August Dvorak, Nellie L. Merrick, William L. Dealey, and Gertrude Catherine Ford, Typewriting Behavior , American Book Company (New York: 1936), p. 184, 503. R. C. Cassingham, , (Arcata, California: Freelance Communications, 1986; ISBN: 0-935309-10-1), pp. 21-26, 41-43. Stan Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis, "Typing Errors", Reason Magazine Account Suspended Account Suspended This Account has been suspended. Contact your hosting provider for more information. Dvorak keyboard typing vs. qwerty how do they compare?

do these tests and see Dvorak Keyboard Typing vs. Qwerty Look at These Tests Dvorak vs. Qwerty typing: How Do They Compare? Do these tests at home and see. The comparative work required to do tasks using both the Dvorak keyboard, and the standard Qwerty system are summarized in these pictures. For discussion, and tests that you can do yourself, see below. Most do not realize just how much your fingers do the walking, to type this ordinary business letter, or email of about 1/2 page. Using the Dvorak keyboard, this letter had the fingers 'walking' 87 1/2 Ft. This letter is reproduced below. The Dvorak user was able to quit and go home, but as you can see, the person using the Standard Qwerty keyboard, had to yet 'walk' the length of this 4 bedroom suburban home, with 2 car garage. The total distance covered was 144+ Ft. No wonder the standard Qwerty system leads to hands hurting, jobs lost, things like RSI and Carpel tunnel, and painful hands in later life. 'Walk' your fingers across a table, or floor, to illustrate this.

But, the Dvorak keyboard is free, and available to all. Discussion, Tests, and demonstrations: See below: A Discussion, then, A short study showing relative finger movement between Dvorak and Qwerty with the 12 most common words, in which Dvorak used 1/3 the finger movement of Qwerty. Finger movement compared between Dvorak and Qwerty on a randomly selected paragraph, the amount of movement over the keyboard 'traced' by colored thread, and tallied for each finger. The results showed that in typing a 62 word paragraph, and then an excerpt from a business letter, Dvorak used between 35% to 20% less movement, and saved almost 6 feet of finger movement, out of the 16 feet of finger movement needed to type these short paragraphs with Qwerty. This is the 'minimum' of difference. In actual practice, nearly all would show more savings, with a range of up to about 50%.

Finger movement added mathematically on a larger sample of a common business letter, randomly selected, This letter, though less than a page in length, had, for some, a savings of up to 56 ft in typing distance. The most efficent typists would still save almost 30 ft. .----------------------------------------------------- Discussion You see on this site claims about 'more speed, less movement', and the advantages of Dvorak over Qwerty. Here are some tests to show 'what and how much'. In typing paragraphs of the type usually found, one can save between about 50%, which is worth 30 minutes of finger movement per hour typed, or 4 hours in an 8 hour day, or- At the low end one can save at least 20% of the distance that fingers move over the keyboard, not as much, but certainly still worthwhile, as this means 12 minutes per hour, or a 1 1/2 hour reduction in an 8 hour day. These were results based on the shortest distances possible required to type the sample paragraphs.

In actual use, and the varied movement of different individuals, the distance saving would usually be more, and often could be up to around 50%. Finger travel can be measured, speed, while many have claimed an increase, or even doubling of their former Qwerty speed, is too dependant upon personal training and efforts to be in the scope of these examples. There have been several studies exploring the comparison between Dvorak and Qwerty. From the US Bureau of Standards, the US Navy, to several academic studies, the results and percentages vary, yet the Dvorak comes out on top. Here is a study I did to show just how much Dvorak is better. While not a formal study, it is a good demonstration, easily duplicated at home or for a science fair project. I also found a Dvorak advantage of 35 - 50% when typing samples of not only English, but also limited samples of German, Portuguese, and Spanish. The distance that fingers move when typing is for many, easy to underestimate. On a small 62 word paragraph, fingers were required to move a distance of 16 feet across the keyboard, using Qwerty.

With Dvorak, the same sample took about 10 feet. The difference was thus 6 feet of movement saved. This same paragraph is about a minute of work for many typists. One can go from here to have the kind of distances covered in an hour, or a days, work. That 35% to 20% can literally represent hundreds, if not thousands of feet 'walked' by fingers in the course of computer or typewriter use, in even a day. On one common business letter that was less than a page in length, Dvorak cut off 56 feet of distance that fingers would have to 'walk' in typing it. Skeptics, even if you cut this in half, you still have over 28 ft. distance that you save with Dvorak, which is also a 28ft.added penalty for staying with Qwerty. Consider also that nearly all typists would be walking more than that. I invite those who want to see all of this as a mere academic exercise to draw a 20 ft line on the floor, and walk your fingers the length of it.

These differences can mean the difference not only in time saved now used for other things, but for some, the difference between typing with pain or not, or with some, even typing at all. Some have even kept employments that they otherwise would have to abandon because of their switch to Dvorak. Any possible, or probable, effect of the less movement reducing, or preventing, carpel tunnel, or RSI injuries would be worth the switch to Dvorak. ------------------------------------------------------ The variance of the results are due to factors such as typing style, and the language style used. This is the movement pattern that almost every typist, on any keyboard, is taught to use. One starts at the 'home position' keys, reaches for a letter, and then quickly returns to the home position. Used by most beginning typists, this pattern of finger movement is often carried, by habit, to some degree, even when more experienced. In typing paragraphs, the advantage of Dvorak over Qwerty can be a 50%, or more, reduction of movement. This is a picture of the more efficient movement pattern that many experienced typists strive for- moving from letter to letter in the most direct, and shortest distance possible, without wasted motion.

If you could use this more efficient pattern, the Dvorak advantage over Qwerty in finger distance movement is 35% on many samples. Yet one cannot, since all fingers are interlinked, and one finger's movement has an effect on the movement on the others of that hand. Most typists, if the next letter typed is with another finger or the other hand, the last finger to type will return to the home row rather than 'wait' for the shortest path to the next key for that finger. This, as well as 'carryover' habits learned as beginners, for most experienced typists there will be a greater difference in efficiency between these two keyboards. A common difference between Dvorak and Qwerty, using this minimum required movement on several sample paragraphs was approximately 35%. If one counts the additional movement of returning to the home row, and other movements made in varying amounts by different individuals, this can, and often do, range up to 50%, or more. Writing style can have an effect on finger on keyboard movement. In paragraph A, below, A --But Nunez, who fell a thousand feet in the midst of a cloud of snow, survived.

Stunned, but without a bone broken, he rolled to gentler slopes and lay still, buried amid the white masses. He worked free of the snow. Below him he saw another steep precipice, but with a sort of chimney cleft down which a desperate man might venture.-- Dvorak required 35% less of the minimum movement to type this paragraph than did Qwerty. In paragraph B, below, B -- Have you ever wondered why every time your copy machine goes on the blink your copier service company's phone is busy or the repairperson won't be able to get to your business for at least a week? -- Dvorak had 20% less of the minimum movement required to type this one question than did Qwerty. 0 5 1/2 From this, fingers 'walk' three times as far with Qwerty than with Dvorak, on these 12 words, but does not account for the other attributes of ether keyboard.

( Dvorak keyboard why it Works ) ---------------------------------------- The Thread Test 2.) As the study above is obviously limited to the most common 12 words, the 'Thread Test' was done with 'real' and 'ordinary' words, sentences, and paragraphs. This material was 'randomly' selected to avoid as possible, preference for words that would 'favor' ether layout with a 'home row' advantage. Dvorak can reportedly type 5000 words on the home row alone, Qwerty types less than 300 on the home row, so the Dvorak advantage would be statistically inherent in the English (and Spanish) language. Imagine that while running your hand across a table, you left a 'trail' of string, that marked the path of your fingers travel, similar to tracing your fingers through a dusty surface. Then you could measure the length of the 'trail' to see where and how far you have moved. This is the premise of the 'Thread Test'. There are several ways to measure movement in industrial studies, from time lapse photography, to computer programs, etc, yet this demonstration is cheap, easily duplicated by most, and visual, providing a kind of time lapse record of finger movement.

This method is best used with short samples only, as longer samples will have so much thread wrapped around the pins that as the thread is increasingly spooled around the pins, the increased circumference of additional wrappings will invalidate the measurements. This is designed as a demonstration for those who want to easily and cheaply see for themselves the differences between the keyboards. This might also be a good science fair project. The keyboards used are one and the same. The keyboard was originally in Qwerty, then changed to Dvorak by prying out the keys and rearranging them into Dvorak, as per the directions in the section ( Dvorak keyboard buy or make your own) Both layouts were copied on a photocopy machine, at 100%, life size, and glued to a board. Get a keyboard that you are willing to experiment with, possibly from a secondhand store, and photocopy it at 100% life size, then convert it to Dvorak using the directions in the section 'Dvorak keyboard buy or make your own'. Then copy it again.

Glue the 2 copies that you have just made to a piece of cardboard then label for 2 identically sized examples of both Dvorak and Qwerty. Get some map pins or similar, and place one in the center of each key. These will guide the thread that you will use to measure the length of finger movement. Make a 'thread pen' from a spool of thread, a paperclip, tape, and a soda straw, the thread running from the spool through the straw to the board. The straw pushing on the spool is to provide even tension on the thread. The keyboard diagrams that have the guide lines used for training and illustration divide the keyboard into the sections or letters that are typed by each finger. (Print a Dvorak keyboard diagram) Note the letters typed by each finger. Since many would find this task both exceedingly tedious and error prone, use the feature in your word processor that lets you 'edit' and 'find and replace'. On the test sample that you select, use the ï¿½find and replace allï¿½ feature to automate this job. For the left middle finger, the keys are E, D, C for QWERTY, and . E J and .

for DVORAK. Replace the letters and punctuation found in that section with underlined letters. Example: On the test sample that you select, use the ï¿½find and replaceï¿½ feature to automate this job. Tie the beginning of your thread to the first key so marked, and ï¿½drawï¿½ the thread with the ï¿½thread penï¿½ that you have made to the next letter marked and so on until all in that section are connected by the thread, in the same sequence that they appear. Secure the end, cut, and do likewise for the other finger sections. You will end up with a thread trail that looks similar to the pictures above. The division of labor between fingers was done according to the chart ( Print a Dvorak keyboard diagram ) for Dvorak. The one commonly prescribed for Qwerty is almost identical. (the 6 is sometimes assigned to the right hand). The downward movement of the keys, which on modern keyboards is typically 3/16", was not counted, as this is equal on both. Of course, the total keystrokes are the same in both.

Here are the results showing the comparative distance, in inches, covered by each finger on a test paragraph in both Dvorak and Qwerty: Hand Left Right Sample Total Finger Little Ring Middle Fore L Total Fore Middle Ring Little R Total Dvorak 0 7 1/4" 6" 24 1/2" 37 3/4" 44 3/4" 20 3/4" 14 1/4 12 1/2" 92 1/4 130" (10.8FT) Qwerty 2 1/2" 15 3/8" 29 1/2 51" 98 3/8" 54 5/8 21 1/8 21 1/8" 2 98 7/8 197 1/4" (16.4 FT.) Dvorak movement difference compared to Qwerty 2 1/2 Less Luckier, New Mexico, 34321 Dear Ms Alexandria: Have you ever wondered why every time your copy machine

 goes on the blink your copier service companyï¿½s phone is busy or the repairperson wonï¿½t be able to get to your business for at least a week?

If your company is like most, every lost day of your copying capabilities can spell headaches, delays, and increased expenses from having to send materials out to be copied. Rest easy. Anderson Copy Repair guarantees you that when you use us as your copier service company, weï¿½ll be there when you need us with the solutions to your copier problems. Our trained staff of service repair people has years of experience under its belts, experience that gets your machine off the blink and back into A-1 condition. Whatï¿½s more, thereï¿½s no risk that you will be without a machine for long. While our service people are servicing your machine, weï¿½ll provide you with a temporary machine until yours is up and going. Most repairs will take less than an hour. But just in case, there will be a top-of-the-line machine at your disposal. Anderson Copy Repair specializes in servicing small businesses like yours. Iï¿½ve enclosed a partial list of our current clients. Feel free to check our reputation with any of them. I think youï¿½ll find the response is unanimous praise.

As a special offer to new customers, we are offering a 6-month contract for copy repair service at our 3-month rates. But the offerï¿½s only good if you sign up by May 31. Simply fill out the enclosed postage paid card, mail it back to us, and weï¿½ll get you started on worry-free copier service. Act now to get the special introductory offer. End Sample Efficiency of the Chubon vs the QWERTY Keyboard Efficiency of the Chubon vs the QWERTY Keyboard Efficiency of the Chubon vs. the QWERTY Keyboard Denis Anson, MS, OTR/L, Stacey George, OTS, Richard Galup, OTS, Bridget Shea, OTS, Ryan Vetter, OTS Abstract There is little available evidence for claims of the efficiency of alternative keyboard layouts. Part of the difficulty in providing such evidence is the prior experience of research subjects with the standard keyboard layout. The purpose of this study was to provide a true comparison of the QWERTY and Chubon keyboard layouts for individuals who type with a single digit. A single subject, repeated measures design was used with a convenience sample of nine participants.

Each participant began typing on a pre-selected keyboard and continued typing until fluency was achieved. This procedure was replicated with each keyboard layout. The words per minute typed at fluency for the ReverseQWERTY was approximately 62% of the QWERTY, indicating that the learned effect had been erased. The average typing speed of the Chubon was at least 5% higher and at most 51% higher than the ReverseQWERTY. There were no significant patterns of error. Results of this study indicate that the biomechanical layout of the Chubon is superior to that of the ReverseQWERTY, and by extension the QWERTY. Future research regarding the topic is needed to further expand knowledge of the effectiveness of the various alternative keyboard layouts. Introduction The QWERTY keyboard, which was named after the first six letters of its layout, is the standard design for both typewriters and computer keyboards. The QWERTY was originally designed to decrease the pace of text entry and to prevent key jamming in early mechanical typewriters. Modern computers to not suffer from key jamming, and many feel that it is time to consider alternative keyboard layouts.

Because the fluency of text entry is determined by the speed and accuracy of the user, it is important to examine these measures for alternative keyboard options. One option presently available is the Chubon keyboard, which was designed to improve the speed and efficiency of single digit entry (Chubon & Hester, 1988). Consequently, a comparison of the QWERTY keyboard and the Chubon keyboard can provide valuable information for occupational therapists who prescribe alternative keyboards for persons with disabilities, including those with low endurance and decreased strength. Background Computer knowledge and the ability to keyboard efficiently have become essential employment skills for the majority of jobs. No longer are they required only for newspaper reporters and secretaries (Struck, 1999). Access to internet communication, educational computer programs, professional documentation and record keeping would not be as efficient without computer skills. The keyboarding proficiency that is developed in school prepares the student for the working world where such skills are used to enhance productivity (Struck, 1999). Computer related technology is also influential in the potential lifestyle development of people with disabilities (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992).

Access to electronic communications can reduce the barriers in the home, community, and workplace that limit independence and productive employment (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). In most automation and computerization, the speed at which data are entered plays a key role in the performance of the system as a whole (Shieh & Lin, 1999). The layout of the keyboard is a crucial variable in determining the speed, accuracy, ease of learning, and efficiency of the interaction between the user and the computer (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). Because the keyboard layout plays such a substantial role with regard to speed and accuracy, it is important to use a keyboard that meets an individual's needs ( Poole , 1995). The standard QWERTY keyboard layout has frequently been criticized for being inefficient (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). Dvorak (as cited in Shieh & Lin, 1999) even went as far as to say that "the QWERTY keyboard was crude and violated ergonomic principles" (p.113).

The QWERTY was originally developed for the manual typewriter in order to slow down the typist and to prevent the mechanical keys from becoming jammed (Struck, 1999). Because high frequency keys were placed at the far corners of the keyboard to provide the mechanical clearance necessary to avoid key jamming, extreme travel of the fingers occurs. This type of configuration requires full finger movement within their range of motion, possibly placing them at high risk for overuse problems (Struck, 1999). Greater finger travel between letters may also result in increased fatigue (Kincaid, 1999). Those experiencing visual, auditory, cognitive, and language limitations have also reported problems with the QWERTY layout (Fong Lee, 1995). After comparing the QWERTY to an alternative keyboard, subjects reported that while using the QWERTY, they 'worked harder' and had more difficulty remembering the layout of the keys (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). Figure 1.

The Chubon Layout (Click image for a larger view) Historically, there were many recommendations for an improved keyboard design soon after the QWERTY keyboard was developed (Shieh & Lin, 1999). Early suggestions for improvement included placing the higher frequency letters in the center of the keyboard on the basis that the index and middle fingers were the fastest (Shieh & Lin, 1999). The 'Simplified Keyboard', proposed by Dvorak and Dealey in 1936, emphasized the need to minimize hand and finger motion and to apply the principles of ergonomics (Shieh & Lin, 1999). In 1988, Robert Chubon developed a new keyboard pattern for the single digit typist (See Figure 1). In the Chubon layout, the most commonly used letters of the alphabet are placed in the center of the keyboard. Those letters which are often paired are also placed in close proximity. Altogether, the Chubon keyboard pattern has been documented to require about 37 percent less finger travel than the QWERTY keyboard for corresponding blocks of text (Anson, 1997).

This "frequency-of-use" key layout was created to facilitate text entry and reduce fatigue (Kincaid, 1999). According to previous research, this type of layout increased typing speed by minimizing distance traveled by the fingers (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). Keystroke speed and accuracy have been utilized as performance measures for evaluating various writing/typing systems (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). Hurlburt and Ottenbacher (1992) conducted a study which compared the results of these measures between the QWERTY keyboard and the Dvorak keyboard. However, this study did not suggest a significantly strong contrast between the two to support a change of keyboard layout (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). One reason for this may be that the subject's prior experience with the QWERTY keyboard affected the results (Hurlburt & Ottenbacher, 1992). This learned-effect of the QWERTY keyboard must be controlled in order to achieve an accurate comparison.

If the user's prior knowledge of the QWERTY layout can be removed, a valid comparison between the alternative keyboards would become possible. Figure 2. The ReverseQWERTY Layout (Click image for a larger view) In order to control for this prior learning, this study uses a variant of the standard QWERTY layout, developed to maintain the biomechanical relationships of the keys while providing a novel arrangement. This is accomplished by inverting the QWERTY layout vertically and horizontally. A dual axis inversion is considered necessary because Matias, Mackenzie and Buxton (1994, pp.88-94) have demonstrated that right to left inversions are easily learned. The ReverseQWERTY pattern (see Figure 2), used in this study, allows comparison of two novel keyboard patterns, while maintaining the inter-key relationships of the QWERTY keyboard. This study was intended to test the following research hypotheses: The ReverseQWERTY keyboard will maintain the biomechanical relationships of the QWERTY keyboard while removing the effect of learning, allowing fair comparisons of alternative keyboard patterns. The Chubon keyboard pattern will allow faster typing than the ReverseQWERTY keyboard.

The Chubon keyboard will allow more accurate typing than the ReverseQWERTY keyboard. Methodology Research Design A single subject, repeated measures design was implemented to test eleven subjects on their typing speed and accuracy for three keyboard patterns: QWERTY, ReverseQWERTY, and Chubon. Subjects A convenience sample was gathered by posting flyers around the campus of a small private college in NE Pennsylvania . The flyers included the purpose of the study and expressed the need for and appreciation of those who participated. The flyer also requested that only those people who are able-bodied, and therefore without perceptual or upper extremity deficiencies, volunteer to participate. The first eleven self identified, able-bodied people, over the age of eighteen, who replied to the flyer and who were ultimately willing to cooperate with and agree to the terms of the experiment were used. As an incentive to participate in the experiment, the subjects were informed that they would receive a ten dollar gift certificate to TGI Fridays for their cooperation. Equipment The source documents for this study consisted of chapters 1-10 of the novel Anne of Green Gables .

(Lucy Mongomery) This novel is available in electronic format from Project Guttenburg The text document was formatted in Microsoft Word to remove extraneous carriage returns and to improve readability. For the purposes of this study, two standard Microsoft compatible personal computers equipped with Microsoft Office 97 were used. Each computer had a Pentium II processor operating at 450 MHz, 128 MB of memory, and a 17 inch monitor. An Intellikeys® keyboard, which is flat surfaced and more upright, replaced the normal keyboard system for all text input. The alternative keyboard patterns were provided using OverlayMaker, which is also available from Intellitools. It is important to note however, that the Intellikeys keyboard is not the only entry system that can be used with the Chubon pattern: it can also be used with the standard keyboard, and with many on-screen keyboards. All text was entered in to Microsoft Word 97, which also provided measures of speed and accuracy. To determine speed, each individual was timed with a stopwatch, and was asked to stop typing after exactly twenty minutes of typing. The "Word Count" accessory in Microsoft Word provided a count of the number of words completed in the time interval.

Words per minute were calculated using the formula: Words typed in 20 minutes = Words per minute 20 minutes Accuracy was determined by how closely the individual's document matched the source document. At the end of a session, the "Compare Documents" feature of Microsoft Word was used to perform a check of the subjects typing. Each deviation identified by "Compare Documents" was considered a single error. Single errors could include the dropping a letter, reversal of letters, or even the deletion of entire lines of text. The degree of error was calculated by dividing the total number of words into the number of errors (DeVries, Deitz, & Anson, 1998). Procedure Participants in the study typed on each of the target keyboards until they achieved the level of 'fluency'. For purposes of this study, fluency was considered to be three consecutive trials with a change in typing speed of less than 7% between adjacent trials. When a subject achieved fluency with one keyboard pattern, they switched to the next target keyboard. Keyboard orders were balanced so that keyboard order did not confound the results. The test sessions for this study were conducted in an internal room of a college building that housed a computer lab.

The internal room minimized external distractors in the course of the study. At each treatment session, the subjects were seated at the Windows compatible computer, with the Intellikeys keyboard pre-programmed to the target keyboard pattern, and an overlay of the keyboard pattern installed. The target text was positioned to the side of the computer monitor preferred by the subject. At each session, the subject received a new section of the target text, so that familiarity would not influence typing speed. At the word "Go", the subject began typing, and a stopwatch was started by the researcher. After exactly 20 minutes, the researcher signaled "Stop", at which point the subjects saved their typing with identifiers for name, date, and trial number. To avoid excessive fatigue, no more than three trials were conducted in a single session, though some subjects participated in more than one session per day. At the end of each day the results were graphed to determine whether or not the subject had achieved fluency with the current keyboard. This process was continued until the subjects had achieved fluency with each target keyboard. Data Analysis At the end of each session, the subjects' output was compared with the source text using Microsoft Words "Compare Documents" feature.

The number of deviations between the source and the typed text was recorded as the number of errors for that session. The "Word Count" feature was used to provide the words-per-minute fluency for each session. The words per minute were recorded, and the difference between each session and the prior session was calculated to determine the percent change in typing speed. The subjects continued with each keyboard until three consecutive sessions showed typing speeds within 7%. Typing speeds and errors were plotted as line graphs after each successive trial. Over successive trials, these graphs showed improvement in typing speed to plateau, and increasing or decreasing accuracy. Fluency was observable when the celeration line displayed a plateau, or when the typing speeds of three consecutive trials were within seven percent of each other (Krishef, 1991). Results Of the eleven participants that began, only nine completed the study. Those subjects who did not finish the study each completed one keyboard layout before electing not to continue. Five of the nine participants who did complete the study achieved fluency on two keyboard layouts. The remaining four participants achieved fluency on all three. QWERTY vs. ReverseQWERTY Figure 3. QWERTY Vrs.

ReverseQWERTY (Click image for larger view) The results of this study support the assertion that the ReverseQWERTY keyboard pattern removes the effect of learning while maintaining biomechanical relationships between the keys. Six subjects achieved fluency on both the QWERTY and ReverseQWERTY keyboards. All of the subjects typed slower on the ReverseQWERTY keyboard, with an typical typing speed 62% slower on ReverseQWERTY than QWERTY. Since the two keyboards are mirror images, this difference cannot be due to mechanical difficulty, and must be the effect of experience on the QWERTY keyboard. (It is of interest that this finding matches closely with the empirical observation of the first author that experience produces an improvement of approximately 50% in text generation speeds over the first plateau.). Thus, the ReverseQWERTY layout may be considered to provide, for single digit typists, a fair comparison of a novice typist using the QWERTY keyboard. Chubon vs. ReverseQWERTY Figure 4. Chubon Vrs.

ReverseQWERTY performance (Click image for larger view) Seven subjects achieved fluency on both the Chubon and ReverseQWERTY keyboard patterns. In each case, the typing speed of the Chubon was at least 5% higher than that of the ReverseQWERTY, and was as much as 51% higher. Typically, the initial speed of text entry with the Chubon was equal to or greater than the final speed of the ReverseQWERTY. This supports the second hypothesis, that the biomechanical layout of the Chubon is superior to that of the ReverseQWERTY, and by extension, to the QWERTY keyboard pattern, for single-digit typing. Figure 5. Performance on each keyboard pattern (Click image for larger view) There were no significant patterns of error related to the keyboard layout or to the number of typed words per minute. The scales of error varied among the individual participants. However, each of the participants remained within an average of 2% of their own error rate with each keyboard layout. This suggests that the degree of error is not specific to the style of the keyboard.

This finding does not support the hypothesis that the Chubon pattern provides more accurate typing than QWERTY. Similarly, the number of trials required by each individual to achieve fluency between keyboards was not significantly related, suggesting that this also was not dependent upon the keyboard type. The typical results of the study are as shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Discussion Clinical Implications There are numerous conditions that may limit a person to single-handed, or even single-digit typing. For instance, a person with a C5-C6 spinal cord injury, amputation, or hemiplegia secondary to a cerebral vascular accident, may have partial to no functioning with one hand (Pedretti, 1996). As occupational therapists, it is our task to adapt the environment to meet the individual needs of these clients. Whether for functional communication, leisure, or work, the effective use a computer and the Internet is a growing need for the disabled population. In order to provide maximum facility in typing, the keyboard layout should be matched to the physical skills of the typist. The Chubon keyboard provides a pattern that supports typing with a single digit on the physical keyboard, or with the mouse as an on-screen keyboard.

Unfortunately, and possibly due to a lack of knowledge, there is a reluctance to learn, and ultimately to change keyboard layouts. Some individuals do not want to appear "different" from their peers, and so resist alternative patterns. Others, on first experience, note that they type slower on an alternative than on the familiar keyboard, and abandon the recommended change before the benefits can be realized. This study offers solid evidence that the biomechanical layout of the Chubon is superior to that of the QWERTY. When prescribing a keyboard layout to a client who will be typing with a single digit, the Chubon keyboard should ultimately provide for more efficient and faster typing. The therapist must keep in mind the fact that, after a neurological insult, some clients will display limitations in new learning. In these cases, the advantages of relying on old learning (the QWERTY pattern) may outweigh the benefit of hard-won new learning, and a new keyboard pattern may not be indicated. But for those clients with the ability to learn a new pattern, or for those without significant prior learning (as in school system practice), the performance benefits of the Chubon pattern support the effort to use this non-standard pattern.

Currently, operating systems such as Windows 98 and Mac OS 9 include keyboard patterns for one-handed typing as options in the installation media. They do not include single digit keyboard patterns because of the paucity of evidence for the benefit of these patterns. This study provides evidence that may support the inclusion of the Chubon pattern in future releases of computer operating systems so that it can be installed without any external software. But even today, public domain programs that allow keyboard remapping are available from many on-line sources. These programs make it possible to install the Chubon pattern on any computer. Some of these programs do not require that software be added to the host computer, so may be used without danger on public computers. It is very easy to create and add the Chubon pattern to a computer, and, for the individual who types with a single digit, the potential benefits are substantial. Future Research Suggestions Future research regarding this topic is desperately needed to further expand knowledge of the effectiveness of the various alternative keyboard layouts. Because this study has shown that the ReverseQWERTY removes the learned effect of the original QWERTY, future researchers may use this methodology to compare other keyboard patterns for special populations to the standard.

When these other layouts are intended for single digit typists, they may be compared with the Chubon as well, with the knowledge that the biomechanical advantages of the Chubon as compared with the QWERTY layouts have been established. Further research conducted with the Chubon keyboard layout may indicate maximum attainable speeds, which can in turn be compared with the plateau speed of the QWERTY for single digit typists. Having equivalent knowledge of both keyboard layouts will make it possible to demonstrate a true comparison of the Chubon and the original QWERTY. To increase generalizabilty, this study should be repeated with people with functional limitations as subjects. Finally, the methodology of this study provides a technique for comparing alternative text generation systems. Additional studies comparing other input methods, such as physical keyboards versus on-screen keyboards, using the same methodology, might generate a body of knowledge that would allow informed selection of alternative input technologies for people with disabilities. Confounding Variables and Limitations Confounding variables are elements that are not the subject to manipulation, but which might provide systemic differences within a study. The only identified variable that could confound this study is past experience.

For example, if a subject has had extensive experience with the original QWERTY, they may have found it more difficult to assimilate to its reversed counterpart. It is possible that the cognitive dissonance associated with the distortion of the QWERTY placed the ReverseQWERTY pattern at a disadvantage compared with the completely novel Chubon pattern. However, considering the similarity in time to achieve plateau and in error rates between the keyboard patterns it is unlikely that any such effect was operating. Limitations for this experiment and its potential results may include the use of a purely able-bodied sample, which may limit generalizability to the disabled population. This population was selected, however, to separate the effects of disability from the effects of keyboard pattern. A replication of the study using people with disabilities may show interaction effects that either weaken or strengthen this study. References Anson, D. (1997). Alternative computer access: A guide to selection. Philadelphia : F.A. Davis. Bailey, D.M. (1997). Research for the health professional: A practical guide (2 nd ed.). Philadelphia : F.A. Davis. Chubon, R.A. and Hester, M.R. (1988).

An enhanced standard computer keyboard system for single-finger and typing-stick typing . Rehabilitation Research and Development, 25, 17. DeVries, R.C., Deitz, J., Anson, D. (1998). A comparison of two computer access systems for functional text entry. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52 , 656-665. Fong Lee, D. (1995). Alternative keyboards. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62 , 175. Hurlburt, M. & Ottenbacher, K.J. (1992). Spinal cord: Wounds and injuries. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 29 , 54-64. Kincaid, C. (1999). Alternative keyboards. Exceptional Parent, 2, 34-35. Krishef, C. H. (1991). Fundamental approaches to single subject design and analysis. Malabar , FL : Krieger. Matias, E., MacKenzie, I. S., & Buxton, W. (1994).

Half-QWERTY: A one-handed keyboard facilitating skill transfer from QWERTY. Proceedings of the INTERCHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 88-94). New York : ACM. Pedretti, L.W. (1996). Occupational therapy: Practice skills for physical dysfunction . St. Louis , Missouri : Mosby. Poole , C.J.M. (1995). Computers and the handicapped. British Medical Journal, 311 , 1149-1152. Shieh, K.K. & Lin, C.C. (1999). A quantitative model for designing keyboard layout. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88 , 113-125. Struck, M. (1999). Focus on. One handed keyboarding options. OT Practice, 4 , 55-56. Please send all correspondence regarding this article to Denis Anson.

Phone: 570-674-6413 , Fax: 570-674-3052 , email: danson@misericordia.edu The Maltron Letter Layout Advantage The Maltron Letter Layout Advantage +44 (0)1785 785525 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. The Maltron Letter Layout You have probably noticed that many of our dual-hand keyboards are available with the Maltron letter layout as an alternative to QWERTY. The Maltron letter layout was developed by us as an alternative to the QWERTY layout, which was designed to slow down the typist to avoid jamming the mechanism on early typewriter keyboards. Consequently, the QWERTY letter layout that we all know (and love?!) is by design incredibly inefficient and forces unnecessary strain and movement of the hands and fingers. The Dvorak keyboard layout goes some way towards addressing this issue and is certainly an improvement over QWERTY, but the Maltron layout goes a big step further.

The Maltron letter layout is based on extensive frequency of use (fou) analysis, and places the most used letters and functions where the fingers and thumbs may easily and comfortably reach them. For anyone used to QWERTY (or Dvorak), the Maltron layout is a radical change, and will require some retraining. However, this can usually be achieved within just a few weeks. A free Maltron layout training course is available under the Training section of this website. You will wonder how you ever managed to type using QWERTY, but don't take our word for it; have a look at some testimonials under "General Info" on the main menu above. Combined with the highly ergonomic shape of our 3D keyboards, you will have the ultimate in typing comfort. You can read an in-depth paper on Maltron keyboard development here . 11 Table 1: Maltron and Qwerty Comparison The above table shows the great difference in number of words and length that result in the optimisation of the frequency of use for the Maltron keyboard layout over the traditional Qwerty keyboard layout. The first four rows show substantially greater number of words possible from the Maltron letter layout.

The last three rows show how few words can be made with the Maltron layout without the use of the home row or full width of the keyboard compared to the Qwerty layout. With the Qwerty layout the left hand has a greater loading than the right hand.

Question: On a QWERTY keyboard which letter lies between A and D?
Answer: S